FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011 Page: 5,271
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
allows for no comparable ceiling at an absolute number of pole attachments per request.182 We agree with
commenters that a percentage-based system alone could be onerous for larger utilities with very large
numbers of poles within a single state, and therefore follow Utah in offering an absolute number
alternative. 13 Although the Vermont and Utah timelines differ somewhat from the timeline we adopt,
(e.g., they are somewhat longer overall), we find this approach to be a reasonable method that
appropriately scales the work required with the existing resources of the utility.
65. We further find that both the percentage-based caps and the absolute number caps in use
in Utah are within the zone of reasonableness suggested in the record. At one end of the proposals,
several pole owners propose caps such as 100, 200, or 250 pole attachments per order.'" At the other
end, several attachers suggest limits of 3,000 or even 5,000 poles per month, even for the shortest
timeline.'85 The Utah model accommodates both categories and receives favorable comment from both
utilities and attachers.'~ We adopt similar caps to Utah's, although our record indicates that the overall
timelines should be somewhat shorter than Utah's.'87
66. We find that setting both a numerical cap and a cap based upon the percentage of poles
owned in a state is a fair approach, as well as one that is easy to understand and administer. 8 By
contrast, we reject less administrable and more subjective proposals, such as capping timeline orders
based on the size of a utility's workforce or the complexity of a request.'89 We are not persuaded by those
commenters who dispute the assumption that the size of an order correlates to how long it will take to
complete the order.'" We recognize that some pole make-ready projects are more difficult to complete
182 Vermont has a 120-day deadline to complete make-ready for an attachment request of up to 0.5% of a company's
poles, and a 180-day deadline to complete make-ready for an attachment request of 0.5 % to 3 percent of a
company's poles. Vermont PSB Rules 3.708(E)(1).
183 See, e.g., Oncor Comments at 11 (stating that Oncor has 2 million poles in Texas); Florida IOUs Reply at 10
(stating that two member companies each have 1.1 million poles).
'"4 See, e.g., Coalition Comments at 33 (arguing 45 days is adequate if single orders capped at 250 poles per order
among other limitations); AT&T Comments at 28 (arguing that orders for 200 poles or more should be deemed
"special orders" not subject to the timeline); Associations Comments at 10-11 (suggesting cap at 100 pole
attachments per order).
185 See, e.g., Level 3 Comments at 6-7 (suggesting cap at 3,000 pole attachments per order); Letter from Alan
Fishel, Counsel for Sunesys, LLC to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 07-245 at 9-10 (filed Mar.
11, 2011) (proposing cap at the lesser of 5000 or 5% of a utility's poles).
186 See, e.g., Coalition Comments at 28-29; CTIA Comments at 10; Qwest Comments at 9 (deeming the Utah
system "ideal"). But see EEI/UTC Comments at 25 (arguing that requests for access to a limited number of
attachments or to a small percentage of a utility's poles does not mean that a utility can automatically process the
request and complete make-ready work in proportionately less time).
187 See, e.g., infra note 200; TWTC/COMPTEL Comments at 10-11; NTELOS Comments at 5-7.
'88 See Qwest Comments at 8-9 (arguing timeframe should permit automatic extensions for large pole attachment
requests); Ameren et al. Comments at 7-8 (favoring establishment of a maximum number of pole attachment
requests that may be submitted per individual permit application); Coalition Comments at 31 (arguing that the total
number and size of requests for make-ready within a certain period should be limited to an amount that is reasonable
in light of the utility's other responsibilities). But see Sunesys Reply at 11-12 (suggesting that limits are prejudicial
to large orders).
189 See, e.g., Coalition Comments at 30-35 (suggesting that an electric utility should not be required to devote more
than 10 percent of its workforce to third-party work, and setting out criteria to distinguish complex make-ready from
non-complex make-ready work).
i See, e.g., EEI/UTC Comments at 25 (arguing that size-of-order and workforce percentage limits do not mean
orders can automatically be processed in proportionately less time); Verizon Comments at 32.
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 26, No. 7, Pages 4843 to 5761, March 28 - April 08, 2011, book, April 2011; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52169/m1/443/: accessed October 17, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.